The Horse of Undeclared War
"The Horse of Undeclared War" was a Special Comment delivered online on 23 March 2011, sixty-one days after the cancellation of Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and eighty-nine days prior to the debut of Countdown with Keith Olbermann on Current TV. The Comment We all know the five-second rule. Drop food on the floor, and if you pick it up before that span of time elapses, it'll still be good. There's a life-or-death version of the same thing, the five-day rule, by which we have surrendered to any U.S. President the right to kill people in our name, provided he only does it for a couple of days. I'm not defending this policy. I'm simply stating that at some point in the last sixty years, it has been established. And from the Bay of Pigs to Reagan's trophy war in Grenada to President Clinton's bombing of Iraq to President Clinton's bombing of Sudan to President Clinton's bombing of Libya, the horse of undeclared war has pretty much left the barn. Nevertheless, after that imperial period of a few days, a President, this one included, is required to either call it off or justify why it must continue or maybe even follow the Constitution and get approval from Congress by explaining the threat to this country that rationalizes the continuing action. Especially when we now have American pilots bailing out over hostile territory. Not only have we not yet gotten this from President Obama about Libya, but five days into our involvement in bombing, what we are getting is a series of extraordinarily mixed messages. And none could be more stark than what he said compared to what his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said. From the President, Monday, quoting: "it is U.S. policy that Gaddafi needs to go." From the Chairman, Sunday, quoting: "it is not about seeing him go," unquote. He added that the mission might be accomplished even if Gaddafi stays in power. And from the President's War Powers letter to Congress, quoting: "United States Forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Gaddafi regime's air-defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Gaddafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian-populated areas." So: this is about making sure Gaddafi goes, except it's not about making sure he goes, except it's about making sure he can't attack his own civilians. If, Mr. President, you someday want to announce "mission accomplished" about this, there is no easier route than to identify two mutually exclusive outcomes as the mission. I wish the conflict in goals ended there, but it does not. Your War Powers message, sir, also included the news that "we will seek a rapid but responsible transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives." Except this seems to be news to those coalition, regional, or international organizations. The British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, said responsibility would be transferred to NATO. The French Foreign Minister, Monsieur Juppé, said the Arab League would not accept control of the operation being given to NATO. But Turkey opposed the use of force by NATO, and was promptly excluded from a NATO meeting to plan that use of force. In case the situation is not confused enough, the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Erdoğan said Turkey did not object to NATO's participation providing the organization could assure him the action would be brief and there would be no occupation which simply seems to send us right back to where we were earlier with the five-second rule of when and for how long it's okay for us to kill people. The metaphorical five seconds has expired Mr. President. We are not clear why we are fighting, who exactly we are fighting with, who the rebels are that we're fighting for, what a no-fly zone accomplishes with a dictator who has ground troops, how long we're gonna be there, to whom we are to hand off, and why, sir, if we are intervening on behalf of civilians at risk, why we did not do so in Egypt, why we are not doing so in places like Bahrain, and if the local government were somehow to screw up the containment at the Daiichi Nuclear Plant, if this new doctrine would somehow permit us, or require us, to go in and try to take over Japan. The longer we go, President Obama, without a clear and compelling argument for why we are doing whatever we are doing, and how soon you are going to stop doing it, the more room there will be for explanations such as those provided by Congressman Ed Markey, and by the dictator Gaddafi himself. The latter, Mr. President, said: "we will not leave our oil to America or France or Britain, or the enemy Christian-states that are allying now against us." The Brookings Institution helpfully translated this phrase, and did so tersely. It means, to them: either Gaddafi intends to blow up Libya's oil infrastructure, or he intends to wait us out. And then if he prevails, to give all his nation's oil business to countries who stayed out of this, like, say, China. The less crazy summary of this came from Congressman Markey. Seven words. Quote: "We are in Libya because of oil." This, Mr. President, is not the impression you want to leave with the people of this country. Mike Lupica in the New York Daily News, of all of those people, just recounted the story of how a previous President vowed to handle Gaddafi after a previous external outrage, and at just about the same time of year, too. He bombed Tripoli, then he went off to throw out the first pitch at the Opening Game of the baseball season. One of the players at the game told that President that he was worried about Gaddafi and the Libyans. That President told the athlete not to be worried. He supposedly pointed to the bench in the dugout and said of Gaddafi, quote: "we ought to nail his privates to that log over there and push him over." That President was Ronald Reagan, and that was after the Berlin disco bombing, and the 25th anniversary of empty, vague, and unfulfilled threats against Gaddafi thus happens next months. Gaddafi has outlasted four Presidents so far, going so far as to con the last of them, George W. Bush into actually saying that Gaddafi had renounced terrorism, and thus merited immunity from the lawsuits over the Lockerbie bombing, plus a visit from Condi Rice and the home version of the Play The U.S. Like A Two-Dollar Banjo game. Now, as ever, Libya is enticing yet a fifth U.S. President to try to have his cake and eat it too, before he drops it, and the five-second rule applies. He will not commit to war. He will not stand back instead as far back from war-like actions as he can, and he believes it's about Gaddafi going when his Joint Chiefs Chair says it ain't. Chairman Mullen said something else which kind of sums this entire quagmire up. Quoting again: "the goals are limited." This is the fifth administration for which this has been true. Once again, it's just too bad that we don't yet really know what the goals are. Mr. President, it's time you made those goals clear, and then let us decide whether or not we agree with you. Good night and good luck. See Also Horse Horse Horse